Family:John Waterbury and Rose Unknown (1)

The Identification of William and John Waterbury

"In 1910 and 1912 Elizabeth French published parish register entries for the surname Waterbury from Sudbury, Suffolk, and other parishes in southwest Suffolk [NEHGR 64:135-36, 66:177-78]. In 1930 Grace A. Waterbury and Edwin M. Waterbury analyzed these records and concluded that the William Waterbury, son of John, baptized at St. Peters, Sudbury, on 12 March 1593/4 was the immigrant, and that the John Waterbury, son of William, baptized at All Saints, Sudbury, on 30 December 1621 was the son of the immigrant [Jonathan Waterbury Genealogy (Oswego, New York, 1930), pp. 113-1-4). While this is an alluring hypothesis, and may well be correct, a caveat must be entered. The eldest child of John Waterbury was apparently Rachel who married at Stamford in 1659. The Waterburys suggest that she was born in 1639, presumably using a rule like that used in this study, in which females are generally about twenty at first marriage. But if this is correct, then John Waterbury would have been only seventeen or eighteen at marriage, which is highly unlikely. In order for John Waterbury to be the usual twenty-five at marriage, Rachel could not be born until about 1636 or 1637, and so would be only twelve or thirteen at marriage, which verges on the impossible. A compromise in which John was twenty-one at marriage and Rachel about sixteen does not strain credulity, but does require two successive short generations, which should be viewed with caution. Further research should be undertaken before this identification is accepted."^[1]

1. ↑ ^1.0 1.1 William Waterbury, in Anderson, Robert Charles. The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England, 1620-1633. (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1995)
   3:1940.

   John (Waterbury) … m. by about 1639 (assuming that daughter Rachel was aged about twenty at marriage in 1659) Rose _____; she m. (2) Stamford 11 May 1659 Joseph Garnsey [TAG 10:113, citing Stamford TR 1:74]. (In 1978 Harriet Woodbury Hodge took note of the claims that Rose was a Lockwood, but could find no evidence to support this identification [Lockwood Gen 82].)